Adams v. Oregon State Children's Services Div.

• Decision Date: 23 November 1994
• Citation: 886 P.2d 19,131 Or.App. 396
• Parties: Lucie and William ADAMS, Appellants, v. OREGON STATE CHILDREN'S SERVICES DIVISION, Respondent. In the Matter of Dabney Crook-Phillips, a Child. STATE ex rel. JUVENILE DEPARTMENT OF LANE COUNTY, Respondent, v. Lucie ADAMS and William Adams, Appellants. CCV 9202260, 89-205; CA A77343 (Control), CA A75412. . *
• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals

Page 19

886 P.2d 19

131 Or.App. 396

Lucie and William ADAMS, Appellants, v. OREGON STATE CHILDREN'S SERVICES DIVISION, Respondent.

In the Matter of Dabney Crook-Phillips, a Child.

STATE ex rel. JUVENILE DEPARTMENT OF LANE COUNTY, Respondent, v. Lucie ADAMS and William Adams, Appellants.

CCV 9202260, 89-205; CA A77343 (Control), CA A75412.

Court of Appeals of Oregon,

In Banc. ^*

Argued and Submitted Feb. 4, 1994.

Resubmitted in banc Aug. 8, 1994.

Decided Nov. 23, 1994.

[131 Or.App. 397] Richard D. Cohen, Milwaukie, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellants.

Jas. Adams, Asst. Atty. Gen., argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Atty. Gen., and Virginia L. Linder, Sol. Gen.

ROSSMAN, Judge.

Petitioners seek review of a Clackamas County Circuit Court judgment dismissing their petition for judicial review, which challenged Children's Services Division's (CSD) denial of their request to adopt a child. They also appeal from a Lane County Juvenile Court order that summarily dismissed a petition in which they alleged that CSD had mistreated the child. The two cases were consolidated for appeal. ¹ We reverse.

Petitioners, a wife and husband who live in Clackamas County, sought to adopt a six-year-old child who had been placed in their care by CSD. ² After the child had lived with Petitioners then filed with the Clackamas County Circuit Court a petition for judicial review, pursuant to ORS 183.480, which is part of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The petition alleged that CSD's denial of their adoption request was "contrary to the best interests of the child * * * contrary to the legitimate contractual expectations of [petitioners] as the prospective adoptive home" and violated petitioners' constitutional rights. ³ The court dismissed the petition on the basis of its "finding" that the juvenile court is the only appropriate forum for petitioners' challenge. In concluding that an APA-based petition for judicial review, filed in circuit court, cannot be used to challenge CSD's denial of an adoption request, the court wrote that it was

                petitioners for approximately ten months, CSD terminated the pre-adoptive placement and removed the child from petitioners' home.  Petitioners filed with the Clackamas County Juvenile Court a petition alleging that CSD had engaged in conduct that endangered the conditions and circumstances of the child and requesting that the court exercise protective jurisdiction over the child based on the following allegations:  Before her ten months with petitioners, CSD had placed the child in approximately ten different foster care homes in one year, and, after forming psychological bonds with petitioners, the child had been removed from their home "without cause or facts consistent with the best interests of the child."   The Clackamas County Juvenile Court transferred the petition to the Lane County Juvenile Court, which accepted the transfer and dismissed the petition on the same day.  CSD issued a letter formally denying petitioners' request to adopt the child
                

"specifically concerned about the child's rights to confidentiality, including records, and the child's lack of a party status in an action under ORS 183.484. The court is further concerned that in an action under ORS 183.484, such an action is not governed by a standard of the best interests of the child and the potential for conflict between the child's right to confidentiality and Petitioners' rights to review discovery makes juvenile court the exclusive appropriate forum for hearing Petitioners' requests."

Petitioners' first assignment of error is directed at the Clackamas County Circuit Court's conclusion that a petition for judicial review, filed pursuant to Oregon's APA, is not an appropriate vehicle by which to challenge CSD's denial of their request to adopt the child. The relevant statute, ORS 183.480(1), provides:

"Any person adversely affected or aggrieved by an order or any party to an agency proceeding is entitled to judicial review of a final order whether such order is affirmative or negative in form." ⁴

Petitioners contend that the circuit court erred in dismissing their petition for judicial review, because CSD is a state agency and petitioners were "aggrieved" by the agency's denial of their adoption request. ⁵ The state argues that the circuit court correctly concluded that the juvenile court is the only forum for hearing challenges of this type. ⁶

We begin by noting that the scope of this case is quite limited. It involves only those prospective adoptive parents who have The child whom petitioners seek to adopt is within the jurisdiction of the Lane County Juvenile Court as a result of a termination of parental rights proceeding. That court will have continuing jurisdiction until the child is adopted, Children's Services Div. v. Weaver, 19 Or.App. 574, 578, 528 P.2d 556 (1974), and its decision to commit the child to CSD does "not terminate the court's continuing jurisdiction to protect the rights of the child or the child's parents or guardians." ORS 419B.349. The state tacitly concedes that petitioners may challenge CSD's denial of their adoption request (see resp. br. at 11), but it argues that such a challenge should be brought in juvenile court, not circuit court, because the juvenile court

requested and been denied CSD's consent to their adoption of children whom a juvenile court has permanently committed to CSD after terminating the rights of the children's biological parents because of abuse or neglect. No adoption petition has been filed. Within this narrow context, we first examine whether CSD's denial of consent can be challenged in juvenile court or in circuit court under the APA.

"has exclusive original jurisdiction in any case involving a person who is under 18 years of age and * * * [w]ho is dependent for care and support on a public or private child-caring agency that needs the services of the court in planning for the best interest of the [child]." ORS 419B.100(1)(d).

Although the state's brief emphasizes the importance of the word "exclusive," as used in that statute, it overlooks the significance of the phrase "in any case involving a person who is under 18 years of age * * *." For the juvenile court to have "exclusive original jurisdiction," the case must "involv[e]" a child. ORS 419B.100(1)(d). A properly drafted ⁷ petition for judicial review does not involve the child, because by its very nature it does not pertain to the child's care, custody and adoptive placement. Those matters cannot be decided in an APA proceeding. Instead, a petition for judicial review raises the issue of whether CSD engaged in an improper decision making process in relation to petitioners alone. Its purpose is to establish that an administrative error has taken place and should be remedied. The question of whether the agency employed improper methods or criteria in reaching its decision does not involve any determination that is specific to the child.

Further, although petitioners ultimately hope to obtain CSD's consent to their adoption of the child, that is not a type of relief that any court can grant, see n. 10, infra, and, appropriately, it is not the type of relief that petitioners sought in Clackamas County Circuit Court. Their petition for judicial review requests that CSD's decision be set aside, reversed or remanded on the grounds that, inter alia, the decision was inconsistent with an agency rule and was violative of a constitutional provision. See ORS 183.484(4)(b)(B), (C). Setting aside, reversing or remanding CSD's decision is not the equivalent of ordering CSD to consent to petitioners' adoption request. In sum, a petition for judicial review that challenges CSD's failure to follow proper administrative procedures is not a "case involving a [minor]," because it does not decide questions regarding the care, custody or welfare of the child. ORS 419B.100(1)(d). Accordingly, the juvenile court does not have exclusive original jurisdiction over this type of case.

The next question is whether a juvenile court is nonetheless authorized to decide that, under ORS 183.484(4), CSD has or has not engaged in an impermissibly flawed administrative decision-making process. As noted above, the legal issue presented by a petition for judicial review is limited to the propriety of CSD's administrative treatment of petitioners' request, not its decisions regarding who may adopt the child. A proper resolution of the question would not include any decisions regarding the child. Instead, the court would examine whether the agency properly interpreted a provision of law The state has not cited, and we have not found, any statutory or case law under which juvenile courts are authorized to resolve such matters. The role of juvenile courts has always been to decide questions regarding the care, custody and welfare of children. Toward that end, the court may hold a hearing to review the child's placement, ORS 419B.449, may modify or set aside its order committing a child to CSD, so long as no adoption proceeding is underway, ORS 419B.426; ORS 419B.420, and may intervene when a CSD placement decision is "so inappropriate as to violate the rights of the child." ORS 419B.349. It is not within the province of juvenile courts to rule on purely administrative questions regarding the decision-making process that CSD engaged in when it denied an applicant's adoption request. Accordingly, we hold that the circuit court erred when it ruled that the juvenile court was the only forum available to petitioners.

whether it exercised its discretion within the range of discretion delegated to CSD by the legislature and acted in accordance with its policies and practices; whether there was substantial evidence to support the [131 Or.App. 403] agency's decision; and whether the agency's denial was based on unconstitutional criteria. ORS 183.484(4).

We turn to the...